Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Although large series from national joint registries may accurately reflect indications for revision TKAs, they may lack the granularity to detect the true incidence and relative importance of such indications, especially periprosthetic joint infections (PJI). Questions/purposes Using a combination of individual chart review supplemented with New Zealand Joint Registry data, we asked: (1) What is the cumulative incidence of revision TKA? (2) What are the common indications for revising a contemporary primary TKA? (3) Do revision TKA indications differ at various followup times after primary TKA? Methods We identified 11,134 primary TKAs performed between 2000 and 2015 in three tertiary referral hospitals. The New Zealand Joint Registry and individual patient chart review were used to identify 357 patients undergoing subsequent revision surgery or any reoperation for PJI. All clinical records, radiographs, and laboratory results were reviewed to identify the primary revision reason. The cumulative incidence of each revision reason was calculated using a competing risk estimator. Results The cumulative incidence for revision TKA at 15 years followup was 6.1% (95% CI, 5.1%–7.1%). The two most-common revision reasons at 15 years followup were PJI followed by aseptic loosening. The risk of revision or reoperation for PJI was 2.0% (95% CI, 1.7%–2.3%) and aseptic loosening was 1.2% (95% CI, 0.7%–1.6%). Approximately half of the revision TKAs secondary to PJI occurred within 2 years of the index TKA (95% CI, 0.8%–1.2%), whereas half of the revision TKAs secondary to aseptic loosening occurred 8 years after the index TKA (95% CI, 0.4%–0.7%). Conclusions In this large cohort of patients with comprehensive followup of revision procedures, PJI was the dominant reason for failure during the first 15 years after primary TKA. Aseptic loosening became more important with longer followup. Efforts to improve outcome after primary TKA should focus on these areas, particularly prevention of PJI. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

Introduction and Aims: As national total knee arthroplasty (TKA) registries evolve, there is an increasing trend towards publication of hospital and surgeon-level outcome data, with the goal of stimulating efforts to optimise the results of TKA. Such efforts first require understanding of the current mechanisms of TKA failure. Previous reports on revision TKA from tertiary referral centres lack data on the overall denominator, thus the relative importance of each failure mechanism leading to TKA revision over long term follow up remains unclear. The aim of this study was to analyse reasons for revision following primary TKA, and assess their relative frequencies over long-term follow-up. Methodology: 11,134 primary TKA performed between 2000-2015 at one of three tertiary referral hospitals were identified. ‘Failure’ was defined as patients undergoing subsequent revision surgery involving change of of one or more components or reoperation for deep periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Patients were identified from a combination of the New Zealand National Joint Registry and individual search of patient records and clinical coding (ICD-9 and ICD-10). All relevant clinical records, radiographs, and lab results were obtained from all New Zealand hospitals to identify the primary reason for revision according to a standardised protocol. Results: A total of 357 (3.2%) failures over the 15 year period were identified. Of these, 36% were revised within one year and 56% were revised within 2 years of primary TKA. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) encompassed 48% of all reasons for revision, followed by aseptic loosening (15%), secondary patella resurfacing (14%), tibio-femoral instability (9%), stiffness (5%), polyethylene wear (2.5%), periprosthetic fracture (2.3%), patella maltracking (1.9%) and extensor mechanism discontinuity (0.9%). In the first 5 years following primary TKA, the most common reason for revision was PJI (52%), from 5-10 years PJI and aseptic loosening (35% each), and from 10-15 years aseptic loosening (41%). Conclusion: In this large cohort of patients with comprehensive follow up, PJI was the dominant reason for failure particularly in the first 10 years. Aseptic loosening becomes more important after 10 years follow up. Efforts to improve outcomes following primary TKA should focus on these areas, particularly prevention of PJI.

PurposeWe aimed to investigate the genomic profile of breast sarcomas (BS) and compare with that of malignant phyllodes tumours (MPT).MethodsDNA was extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) specimens from 17 cases of BS diagnosed at Singapore General Hospital from January 1991 to December 2014. Targeted deep sequencing and copy number variation (CNV) analysis on 16 genes, which included recurrently mutated genes in phyllodes tumours and genes associated with breast cancer, were performed on these samples. Genetic alterations (GA) observed were summarised and analysed.ResultsNine cases met the quality control requirements for both targeted deep sequencing and CNV analysis. Three (33.33%) were angiosarcomas and 6 (66.67%) were non-angiosarcomas. In the non-angiosarcoma group, 83.33% (n = 5) of the patients had GA in the TERT gene. The other commonly mutated genes in this group of tumours were MED12 (n = 4, 66.67%), BCOR (n = 4, 66.67%), KMT2D (n = 3, 50%), FLNA (n = 3, 50%) and NF1 (n = 3, 50%). In contrast, none of the angiosarcomas had mutations or copy number alterations in TERT, MED12, BCOR, FLNA or NF1. Eighty percent of patients with GA in TERT (n = 5) had concurrent mutations in MED12. Sixty percent (n = 3) of these cases also demonstrated GA in NF1, PIK3CA or EGFR which are known cancer driver genes.ConclusionsThe non-angiosarcoma group of BS was found to share similar GA as those described for MPT, which may suggest a common origin and support their consideration as a similar group of tumours with regard to management and prognostication.